불법행위로 인한 손해배상
1. All appeals by the plaintiff (appointed party) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance from “1. Recognizing the Plaintiffs’ assertion” to “2. Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff”, which is the second eightth (8th) of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be deemed as the “Plaintiff, etc.” (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) and the “Plaintiff, etc.”
2. The Defendants asserted that the principal safety defense and the violation of res judicata of the Defendants’ principal safety defense against the Defendants and public officials in charge of registration conversion around May 23, 2005, including the Defendants, filed many lawsuits such as Chuncheon District Court 201Kadan14964 against the public officials in charge of registration conversion around May 23, 2005. Thus, they asserted that the instant lawsuit constitutes a duplicate lawsuit, and thus, it should be dismissed as being unlawful or against the res judicata effect
The lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants is limited to Chuncheon District Court 201Ga14964. According to the evidence No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3-1, the above lawsuit was accepted and processed without confirming the applicant himself/herself at the time of the registration conversion of the land of this case, and thereby causing mental and material damage to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant, etc., who is a public official of Chuncheon viewing, received and processed the lawsuit, without confirming whether the applicant was the applicant at the time of the registration conversion of the land of this case.
However, since the lawsuit seeking the payment of consolation money for mental damage and the lawsuit claiming compensation for property damage are different from the subject matter of the lawsuit, the lawsuit of this case constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.
In the instant lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the previous suit cannot be deemed to have been affected.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. When Defendant E receives an application for registration conversion and land division application of the instant land, whether the presenter and the nominal owner are the same person or not, etc.